[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YKXv/CtdWwiqoAHa@google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 14:13:32 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: revert cleanup handling of false positives
On (21/05/18 17:36), Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Mon 2021-05-17 23:06:12, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > This reverts commit 9bf3bc949f8aeefeacea4b1198db833b722a8e27.
> >
> > I can reproduce the case when resumed VCPU starts to execute
> > is_softlockup() with PVCLOCK_GUEST_STOPPED set on this VCPU:
> >
> > watchdog_timer_fn()
> > {
> > ...
> >
> > kvm_check_and_clear_guest_paused();
> >
> > ...
> >
> > duration = is_softlockup(touch_ts, period_ts);
> > if (unlikely(duration)) {
> > ....
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Which means that guest VCPU has been suspended between
> > kvm_check_and_clear_guest_paused() and is_softlockup(),
> > and jiffies (clock) thus shifted forward.
>
> Are jiffies really updated here?
I guess so. Why not?
VCPUs are not brought up simultaneously, it's up to the host that
schedules them. So, for instance, when we resume VCPU-3 and it
discovers this_cpu PVCLOCK_GUEST_STOPPED the VCPU-0 can already
be resumed, up and running, adding ticks to jiffies.
Am I missing the point of your question?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists